You are here

Please do not post direct links to this site at digg.com, plus other news

Submitted by Admin on Wed, 04/02/2008 - 00:55

Three items.

Site suspended for nearly a day

This site was suspended for nearly a day, likely because someone posted a direct link at digg.com. Please don’t place direct links to this site at very high traffic sites such as Digg or Slashdot. The kind of traffic this site attracts does not leave much room for handling a large surge. As of current it can handle, say, 7,000 additional unique users per day, but placing direct links to this site at very high traffic sites will result in this increase within a few hours.

Here is how to place links to this site at very high traffic sites. Suppose you want to post the following url:

The insole insert can be obtained in the form of a product known as insolia.

Some issues regarding the display of women’s breasts in public

Issues related to the display of women’s breasts in public are interesting. For instance, a woman who nurses her baby in public in the U.S. can be arrested because of the breast exposure; Mary, mother of Jesus, is depicted fully clothed; but, one can buy magazines containing topless women at any convenience store. On the other hand, in some developing nations, women can be seen nursing babies in public, Goddesses may be depicted topless, but pictures of topless women are difficult to obtain/suppressed.

Within any population, there also is great diversity of viewpoints regarding exposure of women’s breasts in public. Some people who visit this site have complained about the censorship of women’s nipples whereas others have complained about excessive exposure of women’s bodies here. Many feminists complain about the “double standards” whereby it is okay for men to expose their breasts but not women, and these feminists do not want women’s breasts to be a sexual object.

Recently, authorities in Copenhagen allowed women to bare their breasts in and around public pools. Here are some interesting excerpts:

Swedish protesters carried out several full-frontal marches in their country but are still campaigning for bare-chested equality.

One of their leaders, 22-year-old Ragnhild Karlsson, said: “We want our breasts to be as normal and desexualised as men’s, so that we too can pull off our shirts at football matches.”

Activists expect a flurry of similar campaigns-across Europe, including in Britain.

The only protest against the move came from lifeguards who said they had problems knowing what to hold when rescuing swimmers in difficulties.

Frank Hedegaard, of the Socialist People's Party, said: “I cannot understand what some people find so offensive about women's breasts. This decision is important in order to stop the idea that women's bodies are only sex objects.”

These issues can be understood better by considering the basic anatomy of women’s breasts. Women’s breasts primarily comprise of fat tissue, connective tissue to hold/shape the fat, and glandular tissue for producing milk. The fat tissue-plus-connective tissue that enmeshes it is not required for producing milk. Whereas fat tissue has energy reserves that can be used to produce milk, this fat does not need to be in the breasts. In addition, the ideal breasts for suckling are those with long teats/nipples and a small amount of fat so that babies can breathe easily while they are nursing.

If the basic structure of women’s breasts is seen light of men’s preferences regarding women’s breasts, then it is clear that the shape component of women’s breasts that is feminine is for the purposes of sexual appeal. Hence, much as feminists try to desexualize women’s breasts – which they will attempt by exposing their breasts in public – they cannot succeed in taking away the sexual appeal/value of well-formed women’s breasts.

So, many of the issues pertaining to the regulation of/cultural diversity associated with/oddities related to the depiction in public or exposure of women’s breasts are related to the sexual appeal of youthful/well-formed breasts. In my case, the justification for the typical censorship of nipples within this site is that this helps reduce the titillation factor, which is not what this website is about, and makes browsing the site more palatable to a wider audience.

Another issue that is seldom discussed when it comes to displaying women’s breasts in public is the disturbing looks of the breasts in obese women and many old women. It is for this reason that I do not have a problem with allowing women to bare their breasts in public as long as they are not old or obese. Whereas not all old women have breasts that are disturbing to look at, if my attitude were translated to legislation, then there would be the question of how to objectively demarcate disturbing from non-disturbing breasts in old women.

So here are the issues. Well-formed breasts have sexual appeal that no amount of exposure to malformed breasts will take away. Some breasts are disturbing to look at, whereas other breasts are neither disturbing nor particularly appealing. So the basic sketch of sound legislation in my opinion is that women with breasts than neither disturb nor especially appeal could be allowed to expose their breasts in public, women with well-formed breasts could be allowed to expose their breasts in public in only designated areas such as public pools or beaches, and women with breasts that are disturbing to look at banned from publicly exposing them. This legislation is mere fantasy, and drawing a fine line between appealing, neutral and disturbing breasts will be difficult, but a reason the restrictions appeal to me is that women most likely to defy this legislation will be feminists, and given the breasts many of them have, we are looking at an easy opportunity to put more feminists in prison.

Comments

After this site was knocked offline from being dugg (linked from digg.com), I went overboard with changes: switching to a new server, using memcache, php op code, combining multiple css and js files into a single file each, using nginx as reverse proxy and gzipping all text-based content. Yesterday, Jezebel featured an article on this site. Within a short amount of time, thousands of feminists went through this site and they are still coming from there. But the site had no issues with CPU loads or memory usage, and could easily have handled several times the traffic. So I am pleased that the tweaks work. Hence there is no need to coralize links to this site from high-traffic sites since the Coral mirror is slow and not reliable. I am also pleased that Jezebel feminists dig the feminine beauty site.

Another issue that is seldom discussed when it comes to displaying women’s breasts in public is the disturbing looks of the breasts in obese women and many old women. It is for this reason that I do not have a problem with allowing women to bare their breasts in public as long as they are not old or obese.

"Another issue that is seldom discussed when it comes to displaying women’s breasts in public is the disturbing looks of the breasts in obese women and many old women. It is for this reason that I do not have a problem with allowing women to bare their breasts in public as long as they are not old or obese"

Oh my god, did he actually write that!? Should I flame him since it was not so "bright" to write that, or just let it pass since I don't think you should be flamed for making silly remarks as long as you truly believe in them? Hihihihi